A suit filed today claims the Marion County traffic court judge is violating residents' constitutional rights by imposing
additional fines on those who unsuccessfully challenge their tickets and closing proceedings to the public.
Plaintiffs Toshinao Ishii, Matthew Stone, and Adam Lenkowsky filed their suit in Marion Superior Court No. 11 against Marion
Superior Judge William E. Young in Court No. 13 and the city of Indianapolis. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief through an order of mandamus prohibiting Judge Young to impose additional fines against defendants who fail to win
their cases before the traffic and parking violations courts.
The suit, a class action complaint, also asks for a return of the fines received by the court, and to keep the traffic court
from closing its courtroom to the public. The plaintiffs claim the imposition of additional fines has a chilling effect on
the fair and equitable administration of justice.
According to the suit, when Judge Young took the bench in traffic court this year, he instituted a policy that defendants
that come before his court and are found guilty would be fined up to an additional $500 and could even be assessed up to $10,000
plus court costs. The traffic courtroom is also open only to defendants. No one else, including parents of minors
who have received tickets, can be present during procedings.
Ishii appeared in traffic court to contest a ticket; he lost and was fined an addition $400. Stone was cited for improperly
wearing a seatbelt. He wears it differently because of a pacemaker and chose not to challenge the ticket because of Judge
Young's policy. Lenkowsky asked to enter the courtroom as a member of the public and was denied entrance.
The suit also includes the newly opened parking citation court in Indianapolis, in which defendants who don't pay their
ticket prior to a scheduled hearing may be assessed up to $2,500 in fines, according to the city of Indianapolis.
The threat of these fines violates the Eighth and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, sections 12, 16
and 23 of the Indiana Constitution, according to the suit.














With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.
In regards to bill's comment about trusting the cover meant. We can trust them about as much as we can trust attorneys'.
This is disturbing to learn...